Supreme Court: Sanction Orders and Procedural Justice in Anti-Corruption Trials

Introduction

In State of Punjab v. Hari Kesh[i], the Supreme Court addressed the pivotal question of whether the Punjab and Haryana High Court was justified in quashing and setting aside the sanction order issued under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘Act’), especially when the trial therefrom had commenced. The trial was at an advanced stage, with seven prosecution witnesses already examined. The judgment provides significant insights into the interplay between procedural irregularities and the principles of justice.

Facts

• An FIR was registered on 10.01.2024 at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala Range, under s.7 and 13(2) of the Act. Subsequently, a sanction order dated 19.11.2018 was issued authorizing the prosecution of the Respondent-accused, Hari Kesh.

• The Respondent challenged the sanction order before the High Court, arguing that it was invalid as it was not issued by a competent authority.

• The High Court allowed the petition and quashed both the sanction order and the proceedings initiated thereunder. However, notably, by this time, the trial had commenced and progressed to a stage wherein seven prosecution witnesses had already been examined.

• Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the State of Punjab (‘Appellant’) challenged the same before the Supreme Court, contending that quashing the order at an advanced stage of the trial was erroneous.

Held

The Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal filed by the Appellant,  reinstated the proceedings before the Special Court in Sangrur while observing that the validity of the sanction order is an evidentiary matter that needs to be determined during the trial. Quashing the sanction order without establishing a ‘failure of justice’ violates S.19(3) of the Act; only once it has been established that an alleged irregularity in the sanction order results in failure of justice can the same be quashed or set aside. However, in the present case, the High Court failed to make any observation and/or demonstrate how the aforementioned sanction order causes a failure of justice.

In light of this, and relying on the judgment in the State of Karnataka, Lokayukta Police Versus S. Subbegowd[ii]*, *which clarified that procedural defects or irregularities in sanction orders do not necessarily invalidate proceedings unless they result in a failure of justice, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and restored the proceedings before the Special Court – Sangrur.

Our Analysis

The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a crucial reminder that procedural defects must be weighed against their impact on justice. It emphasises the balance between procedural adherence and delivering substantive justice, highlighting that procedural defects in sanction orders should not automatically derail anti-corruption proceedings unless they demonstrably result in a failure of justice. This aligns with S.19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which forbids appellate courts from overturning findings solely due to irregularities unless they cause such a failure.

The Supreme Court, by adopting a purposive interpretation of s.19, ensures that procedural technicalities do not outweigh the statute’s intent of combating corruption. Relying on the precedent set in S. Subbegowda[iii], the Court reiterated that procedural irregularities do not invalidate proceedings unless they compromise fairness.

The judgment provides clarity on handling procedural defects, ensuring that anti-corruption cases are not derailed by technicalities. It establishes a balanced framework, streamlining justice while maintaining fairness.

End Notes

[i] 2025 SCC OnLine SC 49.

[ii] 2023 SCC Online SC 911.

[iii] supra.

Authored by Shreya Manchanda, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.